US20100063831A1 - Visualizing revenue management trade-offs via a two-dimensional pareto curve showing measures of overall volume or share versus measures of overall profitability or adjusted revenue - Google Patents
Visualizing revenue management trade-offs via a two-dimensional pareto curve showing measures of overall volume or share versus measures of overall profitability or adjusted revenue Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20100063831A1 US20100063831A1 US12/208,438 US20843808A US2010063831A1 US 20100063831 A1 US20100063831 A1 US 20100063831A1 US 20843808 A US20843808 A US 20843808A US 2010063831 A1 US2010063831 A1 US 2010063831A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- sales
- graph
- aggregate
- optimization model
- contribution margin
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q30/00—Commerce
- G06Q30/02—Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q30/00—Commerce
- G06Q30/02—Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising
- G06Q30/0201—Market modelling; Market analysis; Collecting market data
Definitions
- Systems that provide information to help make these decisions are sometimes referred to as revenue management systems.
- the systems allow decision makers to analyze data and make determinations based on the information that is available.
- the level of ACM a business can achieve depends on its manufacturing capabilities, demand for its products in the marketplace, competition from other manufacturers of the same or similar products, marketing considerations, and various other strategic and technical business constraints. Visualizing how the optimum level of ACM varies with aggregate retail sales can help companies better understand where their business should operate, as well as help them see the impact of various business constraints on that operation.
- FIG. 3 is a graph with total sales on the horizontal axis and change in total ACM on the vertical axis showing graph lines defining a relationship between aggregate sales level and aggregate ACM for different sets of business constraints.
- the present invention provides a technique for visualizing and understanding the trade-off between overall production and/or sales of a portfolio of products and/or services and the resulting aggregate contribution margin.
- the technique employs Pareto curves where each point on the curve represents an ACM maximizing approach to running a business at a given level of aggregate production or retail sales.
- the technique can have application for a company that manufactures several different types of products.
- the process solves an optimization model with an objective function describing the ACM achieved across a set of products and manufacturing plants.
- This optimization model may use a set of business constraints that limit the set of solutions that are available. Examples of business constraints for this purpose may include constraints on price ladders, production capacities, price bounds, cash flow constraints, etc.
- the optimization model should also be solved in the presence of an aggregate constraint that sets overall sales.
- the results from solving the optimization model are stored in a database at box 14 .
- the optimization model is then solved for increasing sales using the same set of business at box 16 .
- the optimization model for this set of business constraints is solved, but with changes in the model that increase overall sales for all of the products.
- Each solution of the optimization model produces a solution corresponding to a particular aggregate sales level and a particular aggregate contribution margin.
- the solution of each result of the optimization problem may be saved in the database at box 18 .
- a data point is created where all of the data points can be combined to define a graph line that represents total sales versus ACM, as discussed below.
- the solution points of the optimization model are plotted on a graph at box 20 that shows aggregate sales on the horizontal axis and aggregate contribution margin on the vertical axis, such as shown in FIG. 2 .
- the graph of FIG. 2 identifies a base case point 22 that is an arbitrary point determined by experienced decision makers against which the solutions to the optimization model can be compared.
- the solution of the optimization model for the particular set of constraints for each change in the overall sales represents a point on the graph. Those points define a line, here line 24 , for these solutions.
- the set of constraints for the graph line 24 represents a ⁇ 5% relaxation of sales for each product relative to the base case point 22 .
- the solutions to the optimization model in this example represent the entire portfolio of products, and the total sales represent the total sales of all of the products in the portfolio. However, this is merely by way of example in that the total sales can be limited to any geographic area of interest. Further, the ACM on the vertical axis is for a fixed time frame in this example. However, when changing the set of constraints, the time frame can also be changed so as to look at profitability for different periods of time.
- FIG. 2 shows aggregate sales versus aggregate contribution margin.
- the analysis and resulting graph may identify any change in revenue and any suitable volume, such as sales, production, etc.
- the steps at boxes 12 - 20 are then repeated for different sets of business constraints at box 36 where the business constraints may be of the type discussed above, but are not limited to those specific examples.
- the optimization model is solved for each different set of business constraints at each point of increasing sales. All of the subsequent solutions of the optimization model produce points, i.e., sets of pricing, sales and production decisions, that comprise a particular strategy, each of which has an associated aggregate sales level and contribution margin.
- the relaxation from the base set of constraints can be changed to ⁇ 10% of sales, the number of sales of a particular product can be increased or reduced, the desired level of profitability can be changed, etc. relative to the base case to provide additional graph lines that are compared to each other and the graph line 24 .
- Points 46 , 48 and 50 are the maximum ACM points for the graph lines 40 , 42 and 44 , respectively. Each graph line contains points that maximize ACM, maintain volume with increased ACM, or maintain ACM with increased volume, all relative to the base case. Solutions that maximize sales/production regardless of impact on ACM, while not highlighted in FIG. 3 , may also be of interest to some decision makers.
Abstract
Description
- 1. Field of the Invention
- This invention relates generally to a system and method for visualizing revenue management trade-offs between overall volume or share versus measures of overall profitability or adjusted revenue of a portfolio of products and/or services and, more particularly, to a system and method for visualizing revenue management trade-offs between overall production and/or sales of a portfolio of products and/or services and a resulting aggregate contribution margin using two-dimensional Pareto curves.
- 2. Discussion of the Related Art
- Businesses need to set prices, sales levels and production levels across the portfolio of goods, services or products that they sell typically in an attempt to maximize an aggregate contribution margin (ACM). In other words, a manufacturing company needs to determine how many products to manufacture, when and where to sell the products and at what price to sell the products to achieve a desirable profitability. ACM can be considered a form of profit, but more specifically accounts for the variable costs and revenue associated with sales, but not structural costs. For example, ACM counts the variable profit for each unit sold, but does not count fixed costs, such as investment in plant facilities or tooling.
- Systems that provide information to help make these decisions are sometimes referred to as revenue management systems. The systems allow decision makers to analyze data and make determinations based on the information that is available. The level of ACM a business can achieve depends on its manufacturing capabilities, demand for its products in the marketplace, competition from other manufacturers of the same or similar products, marketing considerations, and various other strategic and technical business constraints. Visualizing how the optimum level of ACM varies with aggregate retail sales can help companies better understand where their business should operate, as well as help them see the impact of various business constraints on that operation.
- In accordance with the teachings of the present invention, a system and method for visualizing the trade-off between overall production and/or sales of a portfolio of products and/or services and a resulting aggregate contribution margin (ACM) are disclosed that may employ a Pareto curve where each point along the curve represents an ACM-maximizing approach to running the business at a given level of aggregate production or retail sales. The method includes solving an optimization model that has an objective function that describes the ACM across a portfolio of products. The optimization model can be used to determine the prices, sales and production levels of the products that maximize the ACM for a particular set of constraints. If one of those constraints sets the aggregate sales level, the optimization model is solved for increasing aggregate sales levels. The relationship between the aggregate sales level and the aggregate ACM is then graphed. The process is repeated for different sets of constraints, each time allowing the constraint on aggregate sales to vary. The resulting graphs are analyzed to determine which solutions maintain sales volume while maximizing ACM, maintain ACM while maximizing sales volume, maximize ACM and maximize sales and/or production irrespective of its impact on ACM.
- Additional features of the present invention will become apparent from the following description and appended claims, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.
-
FIG. 1 is a flow chart diagram showing a process for providing information to determine the trade-off between overall production and/or sales of a portfolio of products and a resulting aggregate contribution margin; -
FIG. 2 is a graph with total sales on the horizontal axis and change in total ACM on the vertical axis that can used for comparing the relationship between aggregate sales level and aggregate ACM for a particular set of business constraints; and -
FIG. 3 is a graph with total sales on the horizontal axis and change in total ACM on the vertical axis showing graph lines defining a relationship between aggregate sales level and aggregate ACM for different sets of business constraints. - The following discussion of the embodiments of the invention directed to a revenue management system and related method for visualizing and understanding the trade-off between overall production and/or sales of a portfolio of products and/or services and a resulting aggregate contribution margin is merely exemplary in nature, and is in no way intended to limit the invention or its applications or uses.
- As will be discussed in detail below, the present invention provides a technique for visualizing and understanding the trade-off between overall production and/or sales of a portfolio of products and/or services and the resulting aggregate contribution margin. In one embodiment, the technique employs Pareto curves where each point on the curve represents an ACM maximizing approach to running a business at a given level of aggregate production or retail sales. The technique can have application for a company that manufactures several different types of products. Although the discussion and specific examples below talk about overall production and sales and overall profitability or aggregate contribution margin, it will appreciated by those skilled in the art that the technique of the present invention also has applications for visualizing trade-offs for market or segment share, share of capacity, utilization or capacity, retail and fleet sales, gross or net revenue, EBIT, etc.
- The visualization of the trade-off between overall production and/or sales of a portfolio of products and a resulting aggregate contribution margin allows decision makers to adjust a business model to be more profitable subject to the short-term and long-term operational realities of the business that are often embodied in constraints. Four solution points that are usually of particular interest to decision makers using a revenue management system of this type include points that are volume neutral, profit neutral, ACM optimal and volume maximal when compared with a particular current solution. Thus, for example, if a business has a particular pricing, sales and production strategy that it is considering as a current solution, it is likely to be interested in better strategies that either increase the ACM relative to the current solution while sacrificing no sales, maintaining the ACM of the current solution, but at a higher level of retail sales, adjusting sales so as to achieve the highest level of ACM possible or maximizing sales and/or production regardless of its impact on ACM.
- The approach employs a two-dimensional graphical depiction of aggregate sales versus ACM that helps decision makers better understand the implementations of different profit maximizing, pricing, sales and production strategies. By being able to see the different solutions and, in particular, to see how ACM varies with different levels of retail sales, a business can make better informed and more accurate decisions regarding which pricing, sales and production strategies to go to market with. By focusing the attention on, but not limiting attention to, these four types of solutions, decision makers can think clearly about where they want to operate their business, and find solutions that maintain sales rates, but at a higher level of profitability, increase sales while maintaining profitability, increase profitability regardless of whether higher or lower overall sales is achieved or increase sales regardless of its impact on ACM.
- The revenue management system is generally used by a manufacturer or service provider of a large portfolio of products or services to be sold. An example of a manufacturer is a vehicle manufacturer. The system employs a process that determines the price, sales and production levels that maximize ACM across the entire portfolio for a given aggregate sales level and an arbitrary set of business constraints. The set of business constraints can include any number of suitable and desirable constraints for the particular application, such as price ladders, production capacities, price bounds, cash flow constraints, etc. Although one embodiment may employ an optimization model for this purpose, other embodiments may employ other suitable operations, such as heuristic models. Processes and models that make this analysis are known to those skilled in the art that determine and set prices for a portfolio of many products that not only compete with outside competitors, but may compete with their own products. The optimization model is solved for a number of different and generally increasing aggregate sales levels using the set of business constraints. The process then graphs out the relationship between aggregate sales level and aggregate ACM for each solution to the optimization model.
- These steps are then repeated for different sets of business constraints, which may change the constraints for price and number of products in the portfolio of products, and which may affect the price and number of other products in the portfolio of products. The process then adds the resulting sets of points to the graph to provide graph lines for the optimization model solutions for each set of constraints and increasing sales levels.
- The process then makes the resulting graphs available to business decision makers. The process may highlight a point corresponding to an arbitrary base case strategy, which may not correspond to an optimal solution, but rather is an arbitrary point developed by a set of decision makers. The process highlights additional points on the graph that, relative to the base case point, maintains sales volumes while maximizing ACM, maintains ACM while maximizing sales volume, maximizes ACM and maximizes sales/production.
- A more detailed description of the revenue management process discussed above is provided in a flow chart diagram 10 shown in
FIG. 1 . Atbox 12, the process solves an optimization model with an objective function describing the ACM achieved across a set of products and manufacturing plants. This optimization model may use a set of business constraints that limit the set of solutions that are available. Examples of business constraints for this purpose may include constraints on price ladders, production capacities, price bounds, cash flow constraints, etc. The optimization model should also be solved in the presence of an aggregate constraint that sets overall sales. The results from solving the optimization model are stored in a database atbox 14. - The optimization model is then solved for increasing sales using the same set of business at
box 16. In other words, the optimization model for this set of business constraints is solved, but with changes in the model that increase overall sales for all of the products. Each solution of the optimization model produces a solution corresponding to a particular aggregate sales level and a particular aggregate contribution margin. The solution of each result of the optimization problem may be saved in the database atbox 18. Thus, each time the optimization model is solved for a particular set of business constraints, a data point is created where all of the data points can be combined to define a graph line that represents total sales versus ACM, as discussed below. - The solution points of the optimization model are plotted on a graph at
box 20 that shows aggregate sales on the horizontal axis and aggregate contribution margin on the vertical axis, such as shown inFIG. 2 . The graph ofFIG. 2 identifies abase case point 22 that is an arbitrary point determined by experienced decision makers against which the solutions to the optimization model can be compared. The solution of the optimization model for the particular set of constraints for each change in the overall sales represents a point on the graph. Those points define a line, hereline 24, for these solutions. The set of constraints for thegraph line 24 represents a ±5% relaxation of sales for each product relative to thebase case point 22.Point 26 represents a strategy that maximizes ACM,point 28 represents a strategy that preserves sales volume while increasing ACM,point 30 is a solution that provides a price, sales and production strategy that maintains ACM, but with higher sales volume, andpoint 32 represents a strategy that maximizes sales. - The solutions to the optimization model in this example represent the entire portfolio of products, and the total sales represent the total sales of all of the products in the portfolio. However, this is merely by way of example in that the total sales can be limited to any geographic area of interest. Further, the ACM on the vertical axis is for a fixed time frame in this example. However, when changing the set of constraints, the time frame can also be changed so as to look at profitability for different periods of time.
- As mentioned above,
FIG. 2 shows aggregate sales versus aggregate contribution margin. In other embodiments, the analysis and resulting graph may identify any change in revenue and any suitable volume, such as sales, production, etc. - The steps at boxes 12-20 are then repeated for different sets of business constraints at
box 36 where the business constraints may be of the type discussed above, but are not limited to those specific examples. Particularly, the optimization model is solved for each different set of business constraints at each point of increasing sales. All of the subsequent solutions of the optimization model produce points, i.e., sets of pricing, sales and production decisions, that comprise a particular strategy, each of which has an associated aggregate sales level and contribution margin. For example, the relaxation from the base set of constraints can be changed to ±10% of sales, the number of sales of a particular product can be increased or reduced, the desired level of profitability can be changed, etc. relative to the base case to provide additional graph lines that are compared to each other and thegraph line 24. - Each time the steps at boxes 12-20 are repeated and the set of constraints is changed at the
box 36, a new graph line is plotted atbox 38.FIG. 3 is another graph with total sales on the horizontal axis and change in total ACM on the vertical axis showing threeadditional graph lines graph line 24 relative to the base case at thepoint 22, where the set of business constraints has been changed for the optimization model. For example,graph line 40 can be the base case with certain product constraints,graph line 42 can be the base case with a ±10% relaxation of each products sales andgraph line 44 can be the base case with the certain product constraints and the ±5% relaxation of each products sales.Points FIG. 3 , may also be of interest to some decision makers. - At
box 50, decision analysis determines pricing, sales and production strategy. This strategy might be the result of an optimization run. It could also be an arbitrary strategy derived using non-mathematical techniques that is based on expert business judgment. - The strategies shown on the graph in
FIG. 3 , relative to the base case at thepoint 22, maintain sales volumes while increasing ACM, maintain ACM while increasing sales volumes, or maximize ACM. All of these points should be highlighted for special consideration by business analysis. Of course, all of the points should be made visible so that they may be considered by the decision makers. In particular, some decision makers may be interested in solutions that maximize sales/production irrespective of its impact on ACM. - The foregoing discussion discloses and describes merely exemplary embodiments of the present invention. One skilled in the art will readily recognize from such discussion and from the accompanying drawings and claims that various changes, modifications and variations can be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the following claims.
Claims (20)
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US12/208,438 US20100063831A1 (en) | 2008-09-11 | 2008-09-11 | Visualizing revenue management trade-offs via a two-dimensional pareto curve showing measures of overall volume or share versus measures of overall profitability or adjusted revenue |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US12/208,438 US20100063831A1 (en) | 2008-09-11 | 2008-09-11 | Visualizing revenue management trade-offs via a two-dimensional pareto curve showing measures of overall volume or share versus measures of overall profitability or adjusted revenue |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20100063831A1 true US20100063831A1 (en) | 2010-03-11 |
Family
ID=41800018
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US12/208,438 Abandoned US20100063831A1 (en) | 2008-09-11 | 2008-09-11 | Visualizing revenue management trade-offs via a two-dimensional pareto curve showing measures of overall volume or share versus measures of overall profitability or adjusted revenue |
Country Status (1)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (1) | US20100063831A1 (en) |
Cited By (2)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20140279168A1 (en) * | 2013-03-15 | 2014-09-18 | Haggle Shopping Pty Ltd | Automated discounting and negotiation |
CN111612303A (en) * | 2020-04-18 | 2020-09-01 | 青岛奥利普智能制造研究院有限公司 | Data processing method and equipment based on business intelligence BI |
Citations (18)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US6198980B1 (en) * | 1998-11-06 | 2001-03-06 | John Costanza Institute Of Technology | System and method for designing a mixed-model manufacturing process |
US6233493B1 (en) * | 1998-09-16 | 2001-05-15 | I2 Technologies, Inc. | Computer-implemented product development planning method |
US20020055832A1 (en) * | 2000-06-23 | 2002-05-09 | Donelan Anne T. | Structured system for the planning, integration, analysis and management of new product development on a real-time, enterprise-wide basis |
US6553352B2 (en) * | 2001-05-04 | 2003-04-22 | Demand Tec Inc. | Interface for merchandise price optimization |
US20030208429A1 (en) * | 2001-02-28 | 2003-11-06 | Bennett Levitan S | Method and system for managing a portfolio |
US20030220773A1 (en) * | 2002-02-01 | 2003-11-27 | Manugistics Atlanta, Inc. | Market response modeling |
US20040181417A1 (en) * | 2003-03-14 | 2004-09-16 | Gunther Piller | Managing the definition of a product innovation |
US20040267676A1 (en) * | 2003-06-30 | 2004-12-30 | Yan Feng | Method and apparatus for optimizing product distribution strategies and product mixes to increase profitability in complex computer aided pricing of products and services |
US20060100940A1 (en) * | 2004-11-01 | 2006-05-11 | Steve Kakouros | Analyzing product portfolios |
US20060212340A1 (en) * | 2005-03-18 | 2006-09-21 | Drew Juile W | Method and apparatus for product management |
US20060218062A1 (en) * | 2005-03-23 | 2006-09-28 | Drew Julie W | Method and apparatus for product selection |
US20070192170A1 (en) * | 2004-02-14 | 2007-08-16 | Cristol Steven M | System and method for optimizing product development portfolios and integrating product strategy with brand strategy |
US20080065516A1 (en) * | 2006-09-08 | 2008-03-13 | Vinod Pius Raju | Method for tire line category management |
US20090119144A1 (en) * | 2007-11-02 | 2009-05-07 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method, system and program product for optimal project selection and tradeoffs |
US7593871B1 (en) * | 2004-06-14 | 2009-09-22 | Ewinwin, Inc. | Multiple price curves and attributes |
US7664664B2 (en) * | 2003-04-23 | 2010-02-16 | Oracle International Corporation | Methods and systems for portfolio planning |
US7693748B1 (en) * | 1991-06-03 | 2010-04-06 | Ewinwin, Inc. | Method and system for configuring a set of information including a price and volume schedule for a product |
US7783628B2 (en) * | 2003-05-15 | 2010-08-24 | Targit A/S | Method and user interface for making a presentation of data using meta-morphing |
-
2008
- 2008-09-11 US US12/208,438 patent/US20100063831A1/en not_active Abandoned
Patent Citations (20)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US7693748B1 (en) * | 1991-06-03 | 2010-04-06 | Ewinwin, Inc. | Method and system for configuring a set of information including a price and volume schedule for a product |
US6233493B1 (en) * | 1998-09-16 | 2001-05-15 | I2 Technologies, Inc. | Computer-implemented product development planning method |
US6198980B1 (en) * | 1998-11-06 | 2001-03-06 | John Costanza Institute Of Technology | System and method for designing a mixed-model manufacturing process |
US20020055832A1 (en) * | 2000-06-23 | 2002-05-09 | Donelan Anne T. | Structured system for the planning, integration, analysis and management of new product development on a real-time, enterprise-wide basis |
US20030208429A1 (en) * | 2001-02-28 | 2003-11-06 | Bennett Levitan S | Method and system for managing a portfolio |
US7835929B2 (en) * | 2001-02-28 | 2010-11-16 | Bennett Levitan S | Method and system for managing a portfolio |
US6553352B2 (en) * | 2001-05-04 | 2003-04-22 | Demand Tec Inc. | Interface for merchandise price optimization |
US20030220773A1 (en) * | 2002-02-01 | 2003-11-27 | Manugistics Atlanta, Inc. | Market response modeling |
US20040181417A1 (en) * | 2003-03-14 | 2004-09-16 | Gunther Piller | Managing the definition of a product innovation |
US7664664B2 (en) * | 2003-04-23 | 2010-02-16 | Oracle International Corporation | Methods and systems for portfolio planning |
US7783628B2 (en) * | 2003-05-15 | 2010-08-24 | Targit A/S | Method and user interface for making a presentation of data using meta-morphing |
US20040267676A1 (en) * | 2003-06-30 | 2004-12-30 | Yan Feng | Method and apparatus for optimizing product distribution strategies and product mixes to increase profitability in complex computer aided pricing of products and services |
US20070192170A1 (en) * | 2004-02-14 | 2007-08-16 | Cristol Steven M | System and method for optimizing product development portfolios and integrating product strategy with brand strategy |
US7593871B1 (en) * | 2004-06-14 | 2009-09-22 | Ewinwin, Inc. | Multiple price curves and attributes |
US20060100940A1 (en) * | 2004-11-01 | 2006-05-11 | Steve Kakouros | Analyzing product portfolios |
US20060212340A1 (en) * | 2005-03-18 | 2006-09-21 | Drew Juile W | Method and apparatus for product management |
US20060218062A1 (en) * | 2005-03-23 | 2006-09-28 | Drew Julie W | Method and apparatus for product selection |
US7958037B2 (en) * | 2005-03-23 | 2011-06-07 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Method and apparatus for product selection |
US20080065516A1 (en) * | 2006-09-08 | 2008-03-13 | Vinod Pius Raju | Method for tire line category management |
US20090119144A1 (en) * | 2007-11-02 | 2009-05-07 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method, system and program product for optimal project selection and tradeoffs |
Cited By (3)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20140279168A1 (en) * | 2013-03-15 | 2014-09-18 | Haggle Shopping Pty Ltd | Automated discounting and negotiation |
US10026136B2 (en) * | 2013-03-15 | 2018-07-17 | Haggle Shopping Pty Ltd | Automated discounting and negotiation |
CN111612303A (en) * | 2020-04-18 | 2020-09-01 | 青岛奥利普智能制造研究院有限公司 | Data processing method and equipment based on business intelligence BI |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US20240020611A1 (en) | Systems and methods for risk processing of supply chain management system data | |
Masoudipour et al. | A novel closed-loop supply chain based on the quality of returned products | |
US20150120373A1 (en) | Systems and methods for risk processing and visualization of supply chain management system data | |
Lee et al. | The value of information sharing in a two-level supply chain | |
Choi et al. | Risk analysis in stochastic supply chains: A mean-risk approach | |
US8843404B2 (en) | Joint pricing and replenishment of freshness inventory | |
US20160350778A1 (en) | Online solar marketplace providing carbon reduction incentives and tracking | |
US20150363855A1 (en) | Systems and Methods for Automatic Popular Configuration Generation | |
Pu et al. | Differentiated‐product distribution in a dual‐channel supply chain | |
Järvinen et al. | Customer Profitability Analysis Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing. Three Interventionist Case Studies. | |
JP2016164712A (en) | Electric power transaction support system and method | |
US20100063831A1 (en) | Visualizing revenue management trade-offs via a two-dimensional pareto curve showing measures of overall volume or share versus measures of overall profitability or adjusted revenue | |
Zhuo et al. | A new model of manufacturer’s optimal product supply strategy in the context of precision marketing: Based on real demand pattern | |
AU2012201530A1 (en) | Analytics value assessment toolkit | |
US20070129989A1 (en) | Optimized tire category management method | |
Becker et al. | Pricing of Value Bundles-A Multi-Perspective Decision Support Approach | |
Sheel et al. | Antecedents of logistics integration and firm performance for downstream petroleum supply chain | |
Sarigol et al. | Product assortment with sustainable product attributes: The case of a tire producer | |
US20200272964A1 (en) | Systems and methods for providing diagnostics for a supply chain | |
Pfeiffer et al. | Introducing supply chain segmentation procedures into flexibility management | |
Dai et al. | Standard setting with considerations of energy efficiency evolution and market competition | |
Shen | Service operations optimization: Recent development in supply chain management | |
Lalremruati et al. | Analysing a lean manufacturing inventory system with price-sensitive demand and carbon control policies | |
Hwang et al. | Establishment of a customer-oriented model for demand chain management | |
US20090150204A1 (en) | interactive sales planner |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC.,MICHIGAN Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:ROSA, CHARLES H.;OWEN, JONATHAN H.;REEL/FRAME:021539/0528 Effective date: 20080915 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,DISTRICT Free format text: SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNOR:GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:022201/0448 Effective date: 20081231 Owner name: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, DISTRICT Free format text: SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNOR:GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:022201/0448 Effective date: 20081231 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: CITICORP USA, INC. AS AGENT FOR BANK PRIORITY SECU Free format text: SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNOR:GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:022554/0538 Effective date: 20090409 Owner name: CITICORP USA, INC. AS AGENT FOR HEDGE PRIORITY SEC Free format text: SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNOR:GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:022554/0538 Effective date: 20090409 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC.,MICHIGAN Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;REEL/FRAME:023126/0914 Effective date: 20090709 Owner name: GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC.,MICHIGAN Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNORS:CITICORP USA, INC. AS AGENT FOR BANK PRIORITY SECURED PARTIES;CITICORP USA, INC. AS AGENT FOR HEDGE PRIORITY SECURED PARTIES;REEL/FRAME:023155/0769 Effective date: 20090814 Owner name: GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC., MICHIGAN Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;REEL/FRAME:023126/0914 Effective date: 20090709 Owner name: GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC., MICHIGAN Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNORS:CITICORP USA, INC. AS AGENT FOR BANK PRIORITY SECURED PARTIES;CITICORP USA, INC. AS AGENT FOR HEDGE PRIORITY SECURED PARTIES;REEL/FRAME:023155/0769 Effective date: 20090814 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,DISTRICT Free format text: SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNOR:GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:023156/0313 Effective date: 20090710 Owner name: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, DISTRICT Free format text: SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNOR:GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:023156/0313 Effective date: 20090710 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: UAW RETIREE MEDICAL BENEFITS TRUST,MICHIGAN Free format text: SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNOR:GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:023162/0237 Effective date: 20090710 Owner name: UAW RETIREE MEDICAL BENEFITS TRUST, MICHIGAN Free format text: SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNOR:GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:023162/0237 Effective date: 20090710 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC., MICHIGAN Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;REEL/FRAME:025245/0909 Effective date: 20100420 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC., MICHIGAN Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:UAW RETIREE MEDICAL BENEFITS TRUST;REEL/FRAME:025315/0046 Effective date: 20101026 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, DELAWARE Free format text: SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNOR:GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:025324/0515 Effective date: 20101027 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC, MICHIGAN Free format text: CHANGE OF NAME;ASSIGNOR:GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:025781/0211 Effective date: 20101202 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC, MICHIGAN Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY;REEL/FRAME:034384/0758 Effective date: 20141017 |
|
STCB | Information on status: application discontinuation |
Free format text: ABANDONED -- AFTER EXAMINER'S ANSWER OR BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION |